Latest Posts

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in K12 Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – LRN

NEW YORK, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12 Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LRN) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased K12 securities during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides technology-based educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools, and families.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that K12 was publishing misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates’ eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) that K12 submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) that, as a result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open to potential civil and criminal liability; (4) that the Company would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12’s operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 27, 2015, Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (“CREDO”) published a study regarding online charter schools, specifically mentioning K12. CREDO also published a press release in conjunction with the study, summarizing the results of the study. CREDO, in the press release, stated: “Innovative new research suggests that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools.” Multiple news organizations publicized the CREDO study.

On the same day, October 27, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled “K12 Inc. Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2016 With Revenue of $221.2 Million.” Therein, the Company reported disappointing financial results including “[r]evenues of $221.2 million, compared to $236.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” “EBITDA . . . of negative $3.9 million, compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” and an “[o]perating loss of $20.5 million, compared to an operating loss of $13.2 million in the first quarter of FY 2015.”

On this news, K12’s stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 15.8%, to close at $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, on unusually heavy trading volume.

After the market closed on October 27, 2015, K12 filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015. Therein, the Company disclosed that it received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice in connection with an investigation styled “In the Matter of the Investigation of: ForProfit Virtual Schools.”

Though the market did not immediately react to the disclosure of the subpoena buried in the Company’s Form 10-Q, K12’s stock price slid a cumulative $0.54 per share, or 5.2%, over three days from a close of $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, to a close of $9.71 per share on October 30, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

 Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in K12 Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – LRN

NEW YORK, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12 Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LRN) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased K12 securities during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides technology-based educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools, and families.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that K12 was publishing misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates’ eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) that K12 submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) that, as a result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open to potential civil and criminal liability; (4) that the Company would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12’s operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 27, 2015, Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (“CREDO”) published a study regarding online charter schools, specifically mentioning K12. CREDO also published a press release in conjunction with the study, summarizing the results of the study. CREDO, in the press release, stated: “Innovative new research suggests that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools.” Multiple news organizations publicized the CREDO study.

On the same day, October 27, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled “K12 Inc. Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2016 With Revenue of $221.2 Million.” Therein, the Company reported disappointing financial results including “[r]evenues of $221.2 million, compared to $236.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” “EBITDA . . . of negative $3.9 million, compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” and an “[o]perating loss of $20.5 million, compared to an operating loss of $13.2 million in the first quarter of FY 2015.”

On this news, K12’s stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 15.8%, to close at $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, on unusually heavy trading volume.

After the market closed on October 27, 2015, K12 filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015. Therein, the Company disclosed that it received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice in connection with an investigation styled “In the Matter of the Investigation of: ForProfit Virtual Schools.”

Though the market did not immediately react to the disclosure of the subpoena buried in the Company’s Form 10-Q, K12’s stock price slid a cumulative $0.54 per share, or 5.2%, over three days from a close of $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, to a close of $9.71 per share on October 30, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in K12 Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – LRN

/EIN News/ — NEW YORK, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12 Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LRN) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased K12 securities during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides technology-based educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools, and families.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that K12 was publishing misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates’ eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) that K12 submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) that, as a result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open to potential civil and criminal liability; (4) that the Company would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12’s operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 27, 2015, Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (“CREDO”) published a study regarding online charter schools, specifically mentioning K12. CREDO also published a press release in conjunction with the study, summarizing the results of the study. CREDO, in the press release, stated: “Innovative new research suggests that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools.” Multiple news organizations publicized the CREDO study.

On the same day, October 27, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled “K12 Inc. Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2016 With Revenue of $221.2 Million.” Therein, the Company reported disappointing financial results including “[r]evenues of $221.2 million, compared to $236.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” “EBITDA . . . of negative $3.9 million, compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” and an “[o]perating loss of $20.5 million, compared to an operating loss of $13.2 million in the first quarter of FY 2015.”

On this news, K12’s stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 15.8%, to close at $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, on unusually heavy trading volume.

After the market closed on October 27, 2015, K12 filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015. Therein, the Company disclosed that it received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice in connection with an investigation styled “In the Matter of the Investigation of: ForProfit Virtual Schools.”

Though the market did not immediately react to the disclosure of the subpoena buried in the Company’s Form 10-Q, K12’s stock price slid a cumulative $0.54 per share, or 5.2%, over three days from a close of $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, to a close of $9.71 per share on October 30, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

Financial Poise™ Announces “ONE HOUR LAW SCHOOL 2016," a…



Financial Poise™ Webinars and West LegalEdcenter are pleased to announce the September 23rd premiere of a new webinar series “One Hour Law School 2016,” designed to introduce attorneys and business owners to the the legal issues that face business owners. Moderator Robert Sieland of DeVry Education Group joins panelists from firms including Arnstein & Lehr, Lotzer Law Group, Hoge Fenton and Avalon Net Worth to discuss business formation and ownership, employment issues and asset protection.

CHICAGO, IL (PRWEB) September 08, 2016

While the basics about virtually anything—the law included—seem accessible with a few clicks of a mouse, understanding how to use the law practically is another thing. The webinar series, One Hour Law School 2016, explores some of the most common issues faced by business owners, viewed from the real world. The series will jumpstart your understanding of key legal issues and, importantly, discuss practical approaches to dealing and thinking about these matters. You’ll learn how to start a company, work with employees and partners, and protect your business’s interests.

As with all Financial Poise™ Webinars, each episode in the series is designed to be viewed independently of the other episodes, and listeners will enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend one, some, or all of the programs.

All of these issues are discussed in plain English, and while the series is valuable for seasoned professionals in many fields (law, accounting, investment banking, etc.) who practice in this area, it is also be easily understandable for business owners who have not previously been through this process.

The first episode of the series, FORMING A COMPANY, airs on September 23 at 2pm CST (Register Here) and features Moderator Robert Sieland of DeVry Education Group. He is joined by Gene Geekie of Arnstein & Lehr, Peter Feinberg of Hoge Fenton and Trisha Lotzer of Lotzer Law Group.

What is the business? How will it be funded? What is the founders’ vision for the future? The answers to these and other basic questions, will help determine whether a company should be formed as a limited liability company, a partnership, an S corporation, or a C corporation. The choice will have significant tax and operational implications over the life of a business. This webinar explores those implications and how one should go about deciding what the right choice for a particular business is.

ABOUT FINANCIAL POISE™:

Financial Poise™ (http://www.financialpoise.com ) provides unbiased news, continuing education, and intelligence to private business owners, executives, investors, and their trusted advisors. For more information contact Emily Goldin at egoldin(at)financialpoise(dot)com or 312-469-0135.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/forming-company/business-owners-legal/prweb13660006.htm

Go to Source

3 UA trustees have links to 3 firms tied to stadium project

Three University of Arkansas System trustees — Reynie Rutledge, Kelly Eichler and Morril Harriman — have ties to businesses that stand to earn at least $195,800 from a $160 million project to add upscale seats to Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville, public records show.

The trustees’ board, meeting at the C.A. Vines Arkansas 4-H Center west of Little Rock, is to vote today on whether to hire the businesses. A board committee approved the hires Wednesday.

Two Little Rock companies will split about $163,800 as underwriters for a $120 million bond issue for the stadium project, according to University of Arkansas spokesman Mark Rushing.

Stephens Inc. of Little Rock would serve as one senior underwriter, according to a resolution before the board. The Stephens company lists Eichler’s husband, Brad Eichler, as an executive vice president, head of investment banking.

Crews and Associates investment bankers of Little Rock, the other senior underwriter, is affiliated with First Security Bancorp of Searcy. Rutledge, the trustees chairman, is First Security’s president and chief executive officer, according to the companies’ websites.

The Mitchell Williams law firm of Little Rock is recommended as legal counsel for the bond issue. Harriman is a lawyer with the firm.

Mitchell Williams likely would earn $32,000 to $92,000 for the job, depending on the bond issue’s complexity, the university spokesman said in an email. Bond counsel compensation since 2013 has averaged about $60,000 per project, Rushing said.

Arkansas Code 21-8-1001, concerning conflicts of interest, says no state board member “can participate in, vote on, influence or attempt to influence an official decision if the member has a pecuniary [financial] interest in the matter under consideration.”

Eichler and Harriman don’t think that’s a worry in this case. Rutledge was absent from Wednesday’s meeting because of illness and couldn’t be reached for comment.

Harriman and Eichler were present for Wednesday’s committee meetings, including the votes to hire underwriters and legal counsel for the bond issue.

During the meeting, Harriman said University of Arkansas lawyers had told him he could vote on the resolutions without a conflict of interest because he isn’t an officer or equity member of the law firm.

He decided to disclose his affiliation with Mitchell Williams and told the board that he would abstain from voting, despite the legal opinion that it was permissible for him to vote.

Except for Harriman’s abstention, the committee’s voice vote appeared to be unanimous for Mitchell Williams.

Eichler, who joined the board in March, said she participated in the voice vote to hire her husband’s firm as a bond underwriter, which sell bonds to investors.

Conflicts of interest exist every day and aren’t illegal, as long as they don’t include self-dealing, Eichler said in an interview after Wednesday’s meeting.

“Stephens doesn’t rely on me to get business,” she said.

Also, her husband isn’t part of the bond section at Stephens, Eichler said. If the trustees had voted on an investment banking matter for Stephens, she said she would have abstained from participating.

Conflict-of-interest guidelines by a national university association go further than state law and consider actual and apparent conflicts of interest.

“If reasonable observers, having knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would conclude that the board member has an actual or apparent conflict of interest in a matter related to the institution, the board member should have no role for the institution in the matter,” according to the Association of Government Boards of Universities and Colleges in Washington.

The group’s “Conflict of Interest” statement also goes beyond abstaining from votes.

If a university board member doesn’t vote because of an actual or apparent conflict of interest, “ordinarily the board member should not participate in or attend board discussion of the matter,” the guidelines say.

Ethics experts at the organization weren’t available Wednesday to answer questions about UA trustees’ hiring of firms with which they are associated.

The University of Arkansas System has its own standards of conduct for trustees regarding conflicts of interest.

“A trustee has an indirect interest in a transaction if (i) another entity in which the trustee has a material interest or in which the trustee is a general partner is a party to the transaction or (ii) another entity of which the trustee is a director, officer or trustee is a party to the transaction. A trustee shall also be deemed to have an indirect interest in a transaction if any member of his or her immediate family is a party,” the policy says.

But a conflict-of-interest transaction may be approved by the board “if it receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the trustees on the Board, who have no direct or indirect interest in the transaction.”

UA Trustee Cliff Gibson said he isn’t worried about the close associations of board members with companies the system hires.

Gibson and trustee and former U.S. Sen. David Pryor voted against the stadium expansion project earlier this year and spoke critically about it again Wednesday.

But Crews and Stephens Inc. were the lowest bidders among interested underwriters, Gibson said, and an independent company that advises UA recommended them.

“Just because Rutledge owns the bank that gave the lowest bid doesn’t bother me,” Gibson said. “I want the best bang for the buck for the University of Arkansas.”

Arkansas Ethics Commission director Graham Sloan said Arkansas law “prohibits members of boards and commissions from participating in the decision-making process if they have a financial interest in the matter under consideration.”

Competitive bidding, when a board accepts the lowest bidder, can be an exception, Sloan said.

Although UA board committees Wednesday approved employing Stephens, Crews and Mitchell Williams, a vote of the full board today is required to make it official.

A Section on 09/08/2016


Sign up for free, daily email alerts from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


TODAY’S TOP HEADLINES

Go to Source

China punishes 5 auto firms for green car subsidy violations

* Cheating involved 1 bln yuan in subsidies – ministry

* Revokes licence of Suzhou Gemsea, fines others

* Subsidiary of Chery Holding among those fined

(Adds company names)

By Jake Spring

BEIJING, Sept 8 China’s Ministry of Finance said
on Thursday that five domestic automakers had cheated its
programme to subsidise electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and
received roughly 1 billion yuan ($150 million) in illegal
subsidies.

The companies alleged to have benefited primarily make buses
and include a subsidiary of Chery Holding, owner of the seventh
most popular Chinese passenger car brand.

The ministry said it would revoke the production licence of
Suzhou Gemsea Coach Manufacturing, while the other four firms
would be fined the equivalent of 50 percent of the wrongly
received subsidies, while efforts would also be made to recover
any awards which had been obtained illegally.

The Chinese government has used subsidies and hard targets
to promote electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, spurring sales
to more than quadruple last year, in an effort to combat heavy
pollution in much of the country.

The subsidy cheating investigation is another blow to China
achieving its full year sales target of 700,000 new energy
vehicles (NEVs), Chinese shorthand for electric and plug-in
hybrid cars, Yale Zhang, managing director of consultancy
Automotive Foresight, said.

Only 215,000 such cars were sold in the first seven months
of the year, according to China’s automakers association.

The ministry said Suzhou Gemsea had fabricated virtually its
entire new energy vehicle manufacturing and sales operations,
including forging sales and manufacturing certificates and
licenses for the vehicles.

“Individual companies seeking profit, violated relevant laws
to cheat and fraudulently obtain financial subsidies, seriously
disrupting the market order, violating the legitimate interests
of firms that honor the law in researching, developing and
manufacturing new energy vehicles,” it said in a statement.

Suzhou Gemsea could not immediately be reached for comment.

Chery Wanda Guizhou Bus, King Long United Auto Industry,
Shenzhen Wuzhoulong Motors, and Henan Shaolin Bus claimed
subsidies for vehicles they had not finished building, the
ministry said.

Shaolin Bus declined to comment, while the other companies
could not immediately be reached for comment.

The finance ministry laid out penalties for other potential
violations to subsidy policies but did give names of other
companies alleged to have wrongfully obtained subsidies. The
ministry inspected 90 companies in total.

China spent $4.5 billion last year in subsidies for such
vehicles, although it is set to gradually phase out the payments
by 2021.
($1 = 6.6635 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Additional reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by
Muralikumar Anantharaman and Alexander Smith)


Go to Source

Nationally Recognized Authority on Gaming Law Jeff Ifrah to Lead eSports Webinar

Sep 08, 2016 (Marketwired via COMTEX) —
American Bar Association Presentation Will Examine Legal Issues Surrounding New Industry

WASHINGTON, DC–(Marketwired – September 08, 2016) – On September 13, founding partner of Ifrah Law and gaming law expert Jeff Ifrah will host a CLE-credit webinar for the American Bar Association entitled “eSports & the Legal Landscape: A Primer on the Emerging eSports Industry.”

Joined by attorney Bryce Blum, Jeff will discuss legal issues surrounding eSports, including finance, immigration, gaming, gambling and betting, cyber security, business law, advertising, and underage play. Additionally, Jeff will provide a general overview of the current eSports market, discuss recent government and class action challenges, and provide predictions for the future of the industry.

“This year, eSports events have sold out Madison Square Garden, the Staples Center and Key Arena, and television broadcast viewership often exceeded that of many traditional sports like baseball and hockey. The global games market will generate $100 billion in revenues by the end of the year,” said Ifrah. “The industry’s meteoric rise comes with legal, social and regulatory challenges.”

Jeff Ifrah, whose Washington, D.C. based law firm specializes in online gaming, internet commerce and defense of government investigations has been at the forefront of eSports law. Named a leading lawyer by Chambers & Partners, Jeff was recently a featured presenter at the second annual U.S. eSports Conference, where he addressed the industry’s top eSports operators, players, publishers, developers and media firms on how lessons from the iGaming industry can be successfully applied to the emerging eSports market.

Mr. Ifrah will be joined at this webinar by Bryce Blum, the founding partner of IME Law and counsel to Unikrn Gaming, a worldwide leader in eSports betting. Sponsored by the ABA’s Center for Professional Development and the Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries, the webinar is scheduled for September 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM (EDT), and attendees are eligible for 1.50 General Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit hours. List price for tickets is $195, but ABA members may purchase tickets for $150, and sponsor members for $95.

Ifrah Law is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm that represents clients in a variety of litigation settings. Founded in 2009, the firm specializes in Internet advertising, online gaming, government contracts, and healthcare.�?�Its attorneys also author three blogs: www.ifrahonigaming.com, covering all aspects on online gaming, www.ftcbeat.com, FTC and State AG News for Ecommerce, and www.crimeinthesuites.com, an analysis of current issues in white collar defense. For more information, please visit www.ifrahlaw.com

Jeff Ifrah Law — Hands-on Counsel, Gloves-off Litigation: http://www.jeffifrahlaw.com

Jeff Ifrah Again Recognized by Chambers USA 2016 for Gaming Law and White Collar Litigation: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-ifrah-again-recognized-chambers-164109002.html

Ifrah Law’s Jeff Ifrah Advises No Poker Market Is Possible Without PokerStars: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ifrah-laws-jeff-ifrah-advises-230000833.html

Image Available: http://www.marketwire.com/library/MwGo/2016/9/8/11G113324/Images/Nationally_Recognized_Authority_on_Gaming_Law_Jeff-976320c5e75ca327a053f88bbbd85aeb.jpg

Embedded Video Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NulnyhvjT_M

Contact Information:
PR Agency Contact:
ICMediaDirect.com
TEL: 1.800.595.0821
www.ICMediaDirect.com

© 2016 Nasdaq, Inc. All rights reserved.



















Go to Source

UPDATE 1-China says 5 auto firms cheated on green car subsidies worth 1 bln yuan

* Cheating involved 1 bln yuan in subsidies – ministry

* Revokes licence of Suzhou Gemsea, fines others

* Subsidiary of Chery Holding among those fined

(Adds company names)

By Jake Spring

BEIJING, Sept 8 China’s Ministry of Finance said
on Thursday that five domestic automakers had cheated its
programme to subsidise electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and
received roughly 1 billion yuan ($150 million) in illegal
subsidies.

The companies alleged to have benefited primarily make buses
and include a subsidiary of Chery Holding, owner of the seventh
most popular Chinese passenger car brand.

The ministry said it would revoke the production licence of
Suzhou Gemsea Coach Manufacturing, while the other four firms
would be fined the equivalent of 50 percent of the wrongly
received subsidies, while efforts would also be made to recover
any awards which had been obtained illegally.

The Chinese government has used subsidies and hard targets
to promote electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, spurring sales
to more than quadruple last year, in an effort to combat heavy
pollution in much of the country.

The subsidy cheating investigation is another blow to China
achieving its full year sales target of 700,000 new energy
vehicles (NEVs), Chinese shorthand for electric and plug-in
hybrid cars, Yale Zhang, managing director of consultancy
Automotive Foresight, said.

Only 215,000 such cars were sold in the first seven months
of the year, according to China’s automakers association.

The ministry said Suzhou Gemsea had fabricated virtually its
entire new energy vehicle manufacturing and sales operations,
including forging sales and manufacturing certificates and
licenses for the vehicles.

“Individual companies seeking profit, violated relevant laws
to cheat and fraudulently obtain financial subsidies, seriously
disrupting the market order, violating the legitimate interests
of firms that honor the law in researching, developing and
manufacturing new energy vehicles,” it said in a statement.

Suzhou Gemsea could not immediately be reached for comment.

Chery Wanda Guizhou Bus, King Long United Auto Industry,
Shenzhen Wuzhoulong Motors, and Henan Shaolin Bus claimed
subsidies for vehicles they had not finished building, the
ministry said.

Shaolin Bus declined to comment, while the other companies
could not immediately be reached for comment.

The finance ministry laid out penalties for other potential
violations to subsidy policies but did give names of other
companies alleged to have wrongfully obtained subsidies. The
ministry inspected 90 companies in total.

China spent $4.5 billion last year in subsidies for such
vehicles, although it is set to gradually phase out the payments
by 2021.
($1 = 6.6635 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Additional reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by
Muralikumar Anantharaman and Alexander Smith)


Go to Source

3 trustees have links to 3 firms

Three University of Arkansas System trustees — Reynie Rutledge, Kelly Eichler and Morril Harriman — have ties to businesses that stand to earn at least $195,800 from a $160 million project to add upscale seats to Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville, public records show.

The trustees’ board, meeting at the C.A. Vines Arkansas 4-H Center west of Little Rock, is to vote today on whether to hire the businesses. A board committee approved the hires Wednesday.

Two Little Rock companies will split about $163,800 as underwriters for a $120 million bond issue for the stadium project, according to University of Arkansas spokesman Mark Rushing.

Stephens Inc. of Little Rock would serve as one senior underwriter, according to a resolution before the board. The Stephens company lists Eichler’s husband, Brad Eichler, as an executive vice president, head of investment banking.

Crews and Associates investment bankers of Little Rock, the other senior underwriter, is affiliated with First Security Bancorp of Searcy. Rutledge, the trustees chairman, is First Security’s president and chief executive officer, according to the companies’ websites.

The Mitchell Williams law firm of Little Rock is recommended as legal counsel for the bond issue. Harriman is a lawyer with the firm.

Mitchell Williams likely would earn $32,000 to $92,000 for the job, depending on the bond issue’s complexity, the university spokesman said in an email. Bond counsel compensation since 2013 has averaged about $60,000 per project, Rushing said.

Arkansas Code 21-8-1001, concerning conflicts of interest, says no state board member “can participate in, vote on, influence or attempt to influence an official decision if the member has a pecuniary [financial] interest in the matter under consideration.”

Eichler and Harriman don’t think that’s a worry in this case. Rutledge was absent from Wednesday’s meeting because of illness and couldn’t be reached for comment.

Harriman and Eichler were present for Wednesday’s committee meetings, including the votes to hire underwriters and legal counsel for the bond issue.

During the meeting, Harriman said University of Arkansas lawyers had told him he could vote on the resolutions without a conflict of interest because he isn’t an officer or equity member of the law firm.

He decided to disclose his affiliation with Mitchell Williams and told the board that he would abstain from voting, despite the legal opinion that it was permissible for him to vote.

Except for Harriman’s abstention, the committee’s voice vote appeared to be unanimous for Mitchell Williams.

Eichler, who joined the board in March, said she participated in the voice vote to hire her husband’s firm as a bond underwriter, which sell bonds to investors.

Conflicts of interest exist every day and aren’t illegal, as long as they don’t include self-dealing, Eichler said in an interview after Wednesday’s meeting.

“Stephens doesn’t rely on me to get business,” she said.

Also, her husband isn’t part of the bond section at Stephens, Eichler said. If the trustees had voted on an investment banking matter for Stephens, she said she would have abstained from participating.

Conflict-of-interest guidelines by a national university association go further than state law and consider actual and apparent conflicts of interest.

“If reasonable observers, having knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would conclude that the board member has an actual or apparent conflict of interest in a matter related to the institution, the board member should have no role for the institution in the matter,” according to the Association of Government Boards of Universities and Colleges in Washington.

The group’s “Conflict of Interest” statement also goes beyond abstaining from votes.

If a university board member doesn’t vote because of an actual or apparent conflict of interest, “ordinarily the board member should not participate in or attend board discussion of the matter,” the guidelines say.

Ethics experts at the organization weren’t available Wednesday to answer questions about UA trustees’ hiring of firms with which they are associated.

The University of Arkansas System has its own standards of conduct for trustees regarding conflicts of interest.

“A trustee has an indirect interest in a transaction if (i) another entity in which the trustee has a material interest or in which the trustee is a general partner is a party to the transaction or (ii) another entity of which the trustee is a director, officer or trustee is a party to the transaction. A trustee shall also be deemed to have an indirect interest in a transaction if any member of his or her immediate family is a party,” the policy says.

But a conflict-of-interest transaction may be approved by the board “if it receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the trustees on the Board, who have no direct or indirect interest in the transaction.”

UA Trustee Cliff Gibson said he isn’t worried about the close associations of board members with companies the system hires.

Gibson and trustee and former U.S. Sen. David Pryor voted against the stadium expansion project earlier this year and spoke critically about it again Wednesday.

But Crews and Stephens Inc. were the lowest bidders among interested underwriters, Gibson said, and an independent company that advises UA recommended them.

“Just because Rutledge owns the bank that gave the lowest bid doesn’t bother me,” Gibson said. “I want the best bang for the buck for the University of Arkansas.”

Arkansas Ethics Commission director Graham Sloan said Arkansas law “prohibits members of boards and commissions from participating in the decision-making process if they have a financial interest in the matter under consideration.”

Competitive bidding, when a board accepts the lowest bidder, can be an exception, Sloan said.

Although UA board committees Wednesday approved employing Stephens, Crews and Mitchell Williams, a vote of the full board today is required to make it official.

A Section on 09/08/2016


Sign up for free, daily email alerts from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


TODAY’S TOP HEADLINES

Go to Source

China says 5 auto firms cheated on green car subsidies worth 1 bln yuan

* Cheating involved 1 bln yuan in subsidies – ministry

* Revokes licence of Suzhou Gemsea, fines others

* Subsidiary of Chery Holding among those fined

(Adds company names)

By Jake Spring

BEIJING, Sept 8 China’s Ministry of Finance said
on Thursday that five domestic automakers had cheated its
programme to subsidise electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and
received roughly 1 billion yuan ($150 million) in illegal
subsidies.

The companies alleged to have benefited primarily make buses
and include a subsidiary of Chery Holding, owner of the seventh
most popular Chinese passenger car brand.

The ministry said it would revoke the production licence of
Suzhou Gemsea Coach Manufacturing, while the other four firms
would be fined the equivalent of 50 percent of the wrongly
received subsidies, while efforts would also be made to recover
any awards which had been obtained illegally.

The Chinese government has used subsidies and hard targets
to promote electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, spurring sales
to more than quadruple last year, in an effort to combat heavy
pollution in much of the country.

The subsidy cheating investigation is another blow to China
achieving its full year sales target of 700,000 new energy
vehicles (NEVs), Chinese shorthand for electric and plug-in
hybrid cars, Yale Zhang, managing director of consultancy
Automotive Foresight, said.

Only 215,000 such cars were sold in the first seven months
of the year, according to China’s automakers association.

The ministry said Suzhou Gemsea had fabricated virtually its
entire new energy vehicle manufacturing and sales operations,
including forging sales and manufacturing certificates and
licenses for the vehicles.

“Individual companies seeking profit, violated relevant laws
to cheat and fraudulently obtain financial subsidies, seriously
disrupting the market order, violating the legitimate interests
of firms that honor the law in researching, developing and
manufacturing new energy vehicles,” it said in a statement.

Suzhou Gemsea could not immediately be reached for comment.

Chery Wanda Guizhou Bus, King Long United Auto Industry,
Shenzhen Wuzhoulong Motors, and Henan Shaolin Bus claimed
subsidies for vehicles they had not finished building, the
ministry said.

Shaolin Bus declined to comment, while the other companies
could not immediately be reached for comment.

The finance ministry laid out penalties for other potential
violations to subsidy policies but did give names of other
companies alleged to have wrongfully obtained subsidies. The
ministry inspected 90 companies in total.

China spent $4.5 billion last year in subsidies for such
vehicles, although it is set to gradually phase out the payments
by 2021.
($1 = 6.6635 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Additional reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by
Muralikumar Anantharaman and Alexander Smith)


Go to Source